Thanks! u/Graphenium:
The worldview expressed in the Law of One/“Ra Material” and the Hidden Hand interview
https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018
The way I see things, these two sources explain existence, the state of our world, and the meaning of life far more accurately than any other. One is a “channeled” work, and the other is a long series of Questions and Answers between a conspiracy forum (RiP ATS) and a self-proclaimed world-controller. I see them as complimentary, showing a deeper reality by showing two sides of the same coin. One side being that of Service-to-Others, and the other being Service-to-Self
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASG9Vy4Tl/round-table-suggestion-thread/c
Thread will stay open for 3-4 weeks thanks to a very helpful suggestion.
The text is:
Yes, Graph, there's no conflict. I would rather that men had a just war policy than that they warred indiscriminately or that they regarded all war as wrong and allowed subversion indiscriminately. Therefore I would rather that they had an opportunity to go to war, assuming all regulations, negotiations, and humanitarian steps are taken, and on the rarest occasions (maybe twice in the Scripture) even include the children. In fact you have heavily defended the right of Gazans to have recourse to principles of just war that preclude what you think is their violation (being judged by the ICC right now). But, unlike Gaza, in the case of Amalek there was a prior evidentiary determination that they committed crimes against humanity and continued unabated, and there was a period of allowing any who wanted to exempt themselves, or their children, from an eventual war. Those that remain with a failed system after sufficient notice are responsible for their and their children's lives. If there were not a right to conduct just war then the pedophiles could continue their takeover unhindered despite their criminality.
Now, you don't have to believe that the Bible implies my interpretation, but if "all is one" then you would accept that all truth is one and falsehood is just a nullity, and so it's true that (binary commitment time) either just war exists or no war is just against any crime or subversion. I've given you a path to make that choice, but you have shown an aversion to committing to choices. That would be fine if you weren't so hard against those who have made commitments and stick to them, while you reserve two contradictory rights at once, the right to judge others for believing in just war, and the right to declare yourself effectively just for warring on criminals against humanity.
“Kill all the women and babies” is indiscriminate war you disingenuous faggot.
Really dude, come on man...
Yes, really.
Does that mean you want this thread to be a free for all? It's your content here even tho I posted it.
Read it. "Warred indiscriminately" means without "regulations, negotiations, and humanitarian steps". Plus the imperative voice isn't what we mean in English, not "you must kill all children", but "you may kill children", because the offers of peace were refused and the prior crimes of Amalek were judged and documented.
Would you like to make a binary proposition, without namecalling arising from your disingenuous reading of my words, about when a just war includes the risk of death of children and when it doesn't? Or is putting the kids at the bomb targets as human shields always a trump card because no moral person would ever bomb the same? That would mean the pedophiles could just trot out their soul-sucked pandas when they were threatened militarily and continue to complain that they the aggressors are being victimized. I don't think that's your view of proper warfare. Either there does exist a time to call the bluff of human shields, or there does not exist such a time, pick one.
Simple question:
Do you think there is any point in time or geography, across all of human history, where Jesus would tell you “you may” kill a baby in war?
Yes or No. Binary proposition.
Edit) also, you got anything to back up that horseshit argument about “kill every last one of them” doesn’t actually mean kill every last one of them, it means Heaven forbid, they may, only in super extreme circumstances like a Hamas terrorist wearing babies as bodyarmor while genociding innocent Chosen Ones - because frankly that sounds like an utter fucking bullshit cope
Good, now let's remove the ambiguity. Do you mean saying "you must kill a baby" i.e. ending the life of one who cannot possibly be charged with a conscious crime is a good thing, or do you mean saying "you may kill a baby" i.e. given certain circumstances (just war) your prosecution of righteousness might accidentally include death of a baby? Add: You've answered, so I'll follow up separately.
Add: I'll have to look at the context for your second question. Add: Yeah, in this case (given the rapid fire of your off-topic complaints) "you’re right, my bad, I shouldn’t be ... disingenuous". That permission applies in other circumstances, but in 1 Sam. 15 the context was clear that all were intended, where the prior charge was given (verse 2). That's why I said there were a couple such cases. If you can answer the first disambiguation I'll comment on that. To the second, I'd return to my question to you of whether just war is ever permitted to allow death of children or whether human shields always take the high moral ground.